The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purchase order for land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was invalid and could be ignored, and that the State's allotment of surplus land to unsettled tenants conferred an indefeasible right on them.

Surya Kant, J.

Two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2326 of 2011 and 128 of 2012 are being disposed of by this common order as both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 03.08.2011 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellants' writ petitions challenging the order dated 21.08.1990 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from LPA No. 2326 of 2011.

2. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants were in continuous occupation of the subjectland as tenants and rightfully 'purchased' it on 06.09.1967 under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953? If so, whether the purchase order is binding on the State of Haryana?, and if not, whether the 'allotment' of surplus land by the State Government in favour of respondent No. 5 [an unsettled tenant] under the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 is valid?

3. The controversy in this case revolves around the competing claims between the alleged tenants of the land who had 'purchased' it vis-a-vis the unsettled tenants to whom the said land was allotted by the State. The brief facts are to the following effect :-

4. Rao Pirthi Singh and his minor son, were big landowners. Their surplus case was decided by the Collector, Agrarian, Naraingarh [Ambala] on 25.02.1965 and the land measuring 134 Standard Acres and 3 Units was declared as "surplus area" under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 [for short 'the 1953 Act'].

5. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants [Mansa Ram] and one Teja filed applications on 09.09.1966 under Section 18 of the 1953 Act before the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer [Civil], Naraingarh for the purchase of the land declared as surplus area, claiming themselves to be old tenants thereon. Only the big landowner[s] were impleaded and State of Haryana was not made a party to these proceedings.

6. Section 18[1] of the 1953 Act, as amended by the Punjab Act No. 11 of 1955 entitles "the tenant of a landowner other than small landowner" to purchase "from the landowner the land so held by him but not included in the reserved area of the landowner" if such tenant has been in continuous occupation of the land for a minimum period of six years etc. etc.

7. A compromise was affected between the appellants' predecessor and the big landowner [Rao Pirthi Singh] and the latter admitted the claim of his tenants subject to the condition that Mansa Ram - tenant would surrender possession of a part of the land under his occupation. The A.C.I.G., Naraingarh thus allowed the tenant[s] to purchase the land vide his order dated 06.09.1967.

8. Another purchase application under Section 18 of 1953 Act was filed by one Lachman Singh against the big landowner[s] on identical grounds. He did not enter into any compromise, hence his application was dismissed by the ACIG, Naraingarh. That order was upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority [Financial Commissioner, Haryana] on 15.10.1975.

9. Lachhman Singh along with one Sri Chand then approached the Collector, Agrarian, Ambala to invoke his powers under Section 19-C and include the land 'purchased' by Mansa Ram and Teja etc. in the 'surplus pool' for its allotment to the unsettled tenants.

10. The afore said application of Lachhman Singh etc. was processed and the Prescribed Authority-cum-SDO [Civil], Naraingarh vide order dated 24.07.1980 [P-4] allowed the same. The Prescribed Authority categorically held that the subject land was claimed to have been purchased under Section 18 of the 1953 Act by old tenants but "according to the revenue records, Shri Mansa Ram etc. were not continuous tenants for six years on this land". The Authority further took notice of the fact that soon before the compromise the big landowner - Rao Pirthi Singh also had contended that "Mansa Ram etc. were not his tenants nor did they cultivate this land".